The Jewish Donors Behind the Foundation for Defense of Democracies

In case there are still doubts about the Jewish nature of neoconservatism, a recent article “Documents Shed Light On Those Underwriting The Foundation For Defense Of Democracies” by Eli Cliftonat Think Progress should clear things up. The FDD supports all the past and future wars in the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran. It supports “the Bush administration’s militant “war on terror” and policies espoused by Israel’s right wing Likud party.” Yet the FDD statement of purpose completely omits any mention of Israel. Touring their website would lead one to believe that there is no connection at all to Israel or anything Jewish.

All of the identifiable donors to The Foundation for Defense of Democracies are Jews, including a host of well-known Jewish activists like Edgar M. Bronfman ($1,050,000) and Michael Steinhardt ($850,000) who co-founded the Birthright Israel program that brings Jewish young people to Israel for a dose of Jewish patriotism. Haim Saban, who is a pro-Israel fanatic but usually supports left-wing causes in the Diaspora, donated $10,000. I’m shocked that a liberal like Saban would contribute to an organization that is so prominent in Republican circles.

Advertisement

Indeed, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies is headed by Clifford May, who was “the Director of Communications for the Republican National Committee from 1997 to 2001. In his position, he oversaw activities such as strategic planning, press, radio, television, online services, speech writing, and advertising. He worked as the editor of Rising Tide, the official Republican Party magazine. He also was Vice Chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition. May is a regular commentator at Fox News on terrorism.”

The father of Douglas Feith contributed $200,000. Feith, a major architect of the disinformation campaign that eased the path to war in Iraq, has strong links to the Israeli right and to the West Bank settler movement (see here, p. 47ff). Other prominent Jewish neocons employed by FDD are Michael Ledeen (see previous link, p. 29ff) and Reuel Marc Gerecht.

But despite the obvious Jewish backbone of FDD, they give great prominence to non-Jews who serve as window dressing masking the Jewish backbone of the organization. When asked about the donor list, May stated “most of the original group of donors were introduced to me by Jack Kemp, FDD’s founding chairman, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick, a founding member of FDD’s board of directors” — an unverifiable statement given that both are dead. The public image being conveyed is that FDD is not at all Jewish.

This is reinforced by FDD’s “Who We Are” page which states that “Those affiliated with FDD come from many backgrounds.”

Our Leadership Council of Distinguished Advisors includes former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former State Department Under Secretary Paula Dobriansky, Forbes CEO Steve Forbes, former National Security Advisor Robert “Bud” McFarlane, former Ambassador Max Kampelman, Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey.

Six of the nine are not Jews. In the case of the Jews involved, there are strong personal and ethnic ties to Israel. But exactly why these non-Jews are involved is, as usual, difficult to say. It’s not the sort of thing where one can trust personal statements. However, one obvious suggestion is that a major factor is that being involved with the neoconservative infrastructure is a great career move. This is a very well-endowed organization with close ties to the media and to the Republican Party. No surprise that ambitious non-Jews would want to get involved.

As with the other Jewish intellectual and political movements, non-Jews have been welcomed into the movement and often given highly visible roles as the public face of the movement. This of course lessens the perception that the movement is indeed a Jewish movement, and it makes excellent psychological sense to have the spokespersons for any movement resemble the people they are trying to convince. That’s why Ahmed Chalabi (a Shiite Iraqi, a student of early neocon theorist Albert Wohlstetter, and a close personal associate of prominent neocons, including Richard Perle) was the neocons’ choice to lead postwar Iraq. There are many examples—including Freud’s famous comments on needing a non-Jew to represent psychoanalysis (he got Carl Jung for a time until Jung balked at the role, and then Ernest Jones). Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict were the most publicly recognized Boasian anthropologists, and there were a great many non-Jewish leftists and pro-immigration advocates who were promoted to visible positions in Jewish-dominated movements—and sometimes resented their role. Albert Lindemann describes non-Jews among the leaders of the Bolshevik revolution as “jewified non-Jews”—“a term, freed of its ugly connotations, [that] might be used to underline an often overlooked point: Even in Russia there were some non-Jews, whether Bolsheviks or not, who respected Jews, praised them abundantly, imitated them, cared about their welfare, and established intimate friendships or romantic liaisons with them.” …

This need for the involvement of non-Jews is especially acute for neoconservatism as a political movement: Because neoconservative Jews constitute a tiny percentage of the electorate, they need to make alliances with non-Jews whose perceived interests dovetail with theirs. Non-Jews have a variety of reasons for being associated with Jewish interests, including career advancement, close personal relationships or admiration for individual Jews, and deeply held personal convictions. For example, as described below, Senator Henry Jackson, whose political ambitions were intimately bound up with the neoconservatives, was a strong philosemite due partly to his experiences in childhood; his alliance with neoconservatives also stemmed from his (entirely reasonable) belief that the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in a deadly conflict and his belief that Israel was a valuable ally in that struggle. Because neoconservatives command a large and lucrative presence in the media,

The FDD may be considered a paradigm of a successful Jewish activist organization: Well funded and closely tied to the media and to the political elites that run American foreign policy. But, like the SPLC, the public face of the organization completely downplays its Jewish essence.

100 Comments to "The Jewish Donors Behind the Foundation for Defense of Democracies"

Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassor in Washington, was fired the other day for seeking US military help to protect the current pro-US government in Islamabad. Last year he hosted a fundraising event for ‘Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ at his official residence. He is a close friend of Daniel Pipes and Sen. John Kerry.

In February 2004, he toured the United States with neoconservative propagandist Stephen Schwartz attacking mainstream Muslims organizations, and advising local Jewish communities on how best to enhance their lobbying power in Washington.

Some Old World types have blamed Jews for everything from the Black Death to losing the Great War (the **Dolchstosslegend**) to the coming of Majority Rule in South Africa. [Wasn’t Apartheid South Africa’s closest ally the State of Israel?]

If the shoe fits …

Would it be strategic for Israel to ally with SA to reap benefits of that continent’s natural resources and at the same time to have Jews at work for ” black liberation ” in order to cement the control of resources through the very easily controlled ANC socialist regime which jews not so covertly lead and now fully control ?

Dr. Damadian was awarded the first patent for an MRI scanner. His machine built on the work of many predecessors including at least one Jew: Felix Bloch of Stanford University who worked on nuclear magnetic resonance back in the 1930’s. The first magnetic resonance **image** was made at the University of Nottingham.

It depends how you define “cable television”. Is it an “industry” or is it an invention? The work of Milton Shapp came first. In the late 1940’s at Virginia Beach he put together a community antenna system to pull in signals from the nearest broadcasting station in Richmond, 110 miles distant, and send them to receiving sets over coaxial cable. CATV was the first incarnation of cable television. The term still is used.

Shapp did not stop there, of course. He established a company Jerrold Electronics to develop and manufacture equipment for CATV. Jerrold started providing cable television service back in 1948 to areas not served by broadcast television, Shapp becoming wealthy after selling out to another company which eventually was merged with Motorola.

Caleb, yes Jews are obviously superior. In fact you are underestimating their superiority by concentrating on the area in which they are relatively weak. (i.e. practical invention). I want to give Jews their due and will admit that their superiority is even more salient in the area of argument, persuasion and debate. (Or as their enemies would have it ‘not the control and exploitation of nature but the control and exploitation of human nature’).

This is what makes them influential public intellectuals, it’s why only Jews can make films that people actuallly want to see . The reason for their high degree of control over culture in countries which are 98% non Jewish is not because they invented cable, ect.

Sounds like you have confused your homeboy with the man officially recognized by the United States Congress!

John Walson Sr. (1915–1993), from Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania, is recognized by the U.S. Congress and the National Cable Television Association as having invented cable TV in the spring of 1948.[1]

Walson, owner of a Mahanoy City appliance store, needed to solve problems receiving signals from Philadelphia television stations, which were blocked by the mountains surrounding the town. Walson erected an antenna on a utility pole on a local mountaintop that enabled him to demonstrate the televisions in his store with strong broadcasts coming from the three Philadelphia stations. He connected the antenna to his appliance store via a cable and modified signal boosters. He then connected several of his customers who were located along the cable path. This was the first community antenna television (CATV) system in the United States.

The above excerpt is from wikipedia, founded by Universalist, but not jewish, Jimmy Wales.

I accept your qualifications on Dr. Damadian. All scientists depend upon the work of others before them.

John Walson has been recognized by the U.S. Congress and the National Cable Television Association as the founder of the cable television industry. John Walson was also the first cable operator to use microwave to import distant television stations, the first to use coaxial cable for improved picture quality, and the first to distribute pay television programming (HBO). Source Service Electric Cablevision, Inc with special thanks to Rob Ansbach

How can you lie like that? Did your mother tell you to lie like that and only use jewish medical advancements? Guess you refuse the use of an MRI, invented by a Christian? One of the most recent inventions to have changed the way medical diagnostics is the Magnetic Resonance Imaging machine, commonly known as the MRI, Its inventor, Dr. Raymond V. Damadian received the 2007 National Inventor of the Year Top Inventor Award for the MRI.

Professor Lindemann sent me a response. He wrote that many secondary works refer to his knowledge of Yiddish, so he just assumed it to be common knowledge (which, of course, needs no reference, just as you don’t reference that Hitler died in 1945). He quotes Karl Radek referring to a joke about the headquarters of Polish Social Democracy, that among the many Jews there only Dzerzhinsky, former gentleman of Poland and a Catholic, could read and write Yiddish. He learned the language because he was working with Jewish factory workers. (I guess learning the Hebrew/Yiddish alphabet took him a couple of weeks. I once started learning Arabic, and although I gave up after a couple of months for lack of time, I learned the Arabic script in no more than two weeks. It’s strange some Jews didn’t learn it themselves. I mean, if I were Jewish, I would surely have learnt it.)

There used to be lots of Sephardics who could speak and read Arabic. Though no Sephardic Israel’s first foreign minister, the Oxford scholar Abba Eban treasured it among the many languages he knew.

You, too have been guilty of a few digressions, ranting on about how Jews are either swindlers or subversives. But given Hungary’s sad experience with Communism which in that country really was Jewish-dominated, I suppose a touch of antisemitism is to be expected. Still, I must wonder the combination of ineptitude and cruelty which the Hungarian Communists from Bela Kun to Erno Gero, Rakosi and Gabor Peter showed was a particularly Jewish quality or just a Hungarian one.

The experience in the USA has fortunately been different. Jews have served in various State Houses (Governors) with great success and popularity even in States with insignificant Jewish populations, like Milton Shap (born Schapiro) of Pennsylvania who by the way invented cable television before entering politics. Jews have been and are now popularly elected Senators, sometimes getting to the Senate **against** the Jewish vote, like Connecticut’s Joseph Lieberman, once reviled by the Left as the “corporate Democrat”.

It is now nearly a century ago. Does it really matter whether Dzerzhinsky spoke Yiddish or Kerensky spoke Swahili?

When a mother took her child to be inoculated with his attenuated virus vaccine, did she inquire about Albert Sabin’s religion or where he was born (Russia!)?

The Arabic script I just brought up as an example of how easy it is to learn another script. It must have been very easy for Dzerzhinsky to learn Hebrew/Yiddish script, and it’s strange his Jewish friends didn’t learn it. (Because, as the joke went, only the Catholic Polish gentleman Dz. could read and write in Yiddish, and his Jewish friends couldn’t.) Probably if someone paid me for it, I could learn Hebrew script in a couple of weeks, maybe a month at the most. But it was a minor point.

Your theorizing about the roots of my dislike of Jews is mistaken. First, contrary to your belief, most Hungarians are not antisemitic. Second, I used to be a liberal (in the Hungarian context it means a combination of a belief in free markets, philosemitism, and a rejection of nationalism), and my favorite writer was Kafka, my favorite philosopher Spinoza, and being a metalhead my favorite musician was Chuck Schuldiner.

I will answer the rest later, it’s midnight here in Central Europe, and I had a very long day.

UK, too, is flooded with Jewish-controlled think tank such as the ‘Royal United Services Institute’. Its latest guest was no other than Major-General Danny Rothschild, director of the Institute for Policy and Strategy in Herzliya (Israel) who told his paranoid pro-Israel audience that the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ is in fact the ‘Islamic Spring’….

The view that the Jews are responsible for each and every ill in the world is no doubt a simplification.

However, Jews did play a serious role in the major problems white Europeans have faced since the middle of the 19th century. They played and have been playing a leading role in capitalist swindles since the start of capitalism, just as they played and have been playing a leading role in every single subversive movement in the countries of white Europeans. They played a decisive role in the Russian turmoil, and indeed, during the most murderous years of Soviet communism (which, coincidentally, ended in the 1950s, exactly the time when Jewish prominence finally faded and the start of real Soviet antisemitism), they played a leading role. (Although no doubt a number of gentiles played prominent roles also, but that’s besides the point.) They also played a decisive role in other leftist or Marxist movements. They played a decisive role in Freudianism. They played a decisive role in Boasian anthropology (I keep bumping into references to Boas, and also to a kind of “vulgar-Boasianism”, which trickled down to the “everybody knows” type of pseudoscientific folk knowledge), just as in the promoting of immigration, in multiculturalism, in affirmative action and black rights (including in South Africa, where it will in a few decades lead to a genocide of the whites there, with the Jews leaving for Israel and the gentile whites left behind to eat what the Jews cooked for them), the hate crime and hate speech laws (the two most prominent hate group monitoring independent organizations in the US are the ADL and the SPLC, the former a Jewish organization and the latter a non-Jewish organization with a dominant, majority role played by Jews), etc. etc.

I’m not saying some of these phenomenons would never have occured without the Jews. But at least some of them would never have occured, and even the rest would have been much less destructive or influential.

I’m also not saying some Jews might not have played a positive role in society. Some Jewish scientists, artists, etc. might have contributed to our culture, technology, scientific knowledge. But even granting these, the balance is still highly negative. I would rather have a little bit slower scientific/technical progress, than a bit faster progress with total or partial biological extinction and replacement.

So I think there’s no way around pointing out Jewish role in our present woes.

Sorry, Gabor, antisemitism just doesn’t play well in the New World — a region where just about everyone was an Outsider at some stage of history. In the USA there is little connection of Jews with Bolshevism. Most Americans are more likely to think of http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/sal0int-1 when the topic is Jews.

Some Old World types have blamed Jews for everything from the Black Death to losing the Great War (the **Dolchstosslegend**) to the coming of Majority Rule in South Africa. [Wasn’t Apartheid South Africa’s closest ally the State of Israel?]

Caleb, regarding South Africa, google a few names like Arthur Goldreich, Harry Oppenheimer, Helen Suzman, Harry Schwarz. Harry Oppenheimer provided the financial backing inside SA against white rule. The prominence of Jewish role in overturning SA order is all the stranger given that the SAR was an ally of Israel.

What you call as majority rule is a corrupt quasi one-party system which is constantly deteriorating and will dissolve into anarchy and dictatorship as other black African countries have done before. It’s interesting to note that the president is a polygamist.

As for the rest, you didn’t reply to any of my points. I don’t care what the majority of Americans (or, indeed, Hungarians) believe about the Jews being victims of communism or nice and benevolent overachievers, etc. I do care, however, whether the connection between Jews and Bolshevism was factually correct, or not. Now, it happens to have been factually correct. The same goes for all the rest I wrote. You also didn’t answer any of my points here or in my other post. Are you satisfied with my source on Dzerzhinsky, or you need an exact page number?

This is Jewish code for traditional Christians and advocates of Western civilization, both of which Jews hate.

Jason Speaks makes a good point. Caleb says Americans have been accepting, tolerant and even flattering of Jewry, and yet note how they’ve been paid back in kind with subversion, cheating, treachery, and Israel-first treason.

Since this is how Jewry treats even those who hand them everything on a silver platter, it goes to show that they simply can’t control their evil impulse to bite the hand that feeds no matter how well they are treated.

This all goes back to Gentile-hating Jewish doctrine and dogma, which similar to Islamic doctrine, has contempt for goy infidels and contains mandates to subjugate, cheat or destroy them.

This is why organized Jewry belongs in the Middle East with the other cutthroats, and not in the Greco-Christianized, honorable West.

Caleb: I see you are still hanging around trying to make your points, glad to see your point of view, however much I disagree with it. Q. Are jews grateful to evangelical Christians who slavishly devote themselves to Israel, or do they just consider them simple minded shlubs, useful to help extract money from America, even though israel is doing so well apartments are priced out of reach of the more non archetype jews (i. e. poor)?

Caleb, the fact remains, Jews have been treated very well by the US and there is almost no gratitude in return. People like yourself (assuming you are Jewish) have spent 100 years telling us how horrible White Gentiles in the US. As a group, Jews have spearheaded virtually every attack on American culture. Isn’t it time for some self-reflection on the part of American Jews?

Scoter (sic), I believe opinion in Israel on the Christian Evangelicals is divided. The right wingers like them very much and try to downplay religious differences with phrases like “They’re waiting for the second coming of the Messiah; we’re waiting for the first”.

“From friends like that, God protect us” would sum up the view of the liberal Zionists — a group very much on the defensive and growing ever smaller. The liberals regard Christian fundamentalists as one source of antisemitism back home [just check out the David Duke excreta]. Then there is the actual text of the Book of Revelation as to the expected fate of the Jews on Judgement Day.

That there is one “white culture” in the USA is a racist myth. In fact there are many. What we do share, Jews very much included, are certain values. Jews have been treated well? Yes, but so has everyone, that’s what makes this America, Jews no better than anyone else and often worse.

Of course, the rapid rise in income and social standing achieved by Jews in America was bound to elicit envy among those whose own progress was much slower. Even a century ago when most Jews lived in slums, these were slums with middle-class values — boys more likely to be in school than in jail, lower rates of family abandonment, of alcoholism and infectious disease than many far wealthier neighborhoods. Jewish parents didn’t pull their kids out of school as soon as the law allowed, to send them out to shine shoes or break up coal for the dollar or two they could add to the family’s weekly income. This ability to postpone gratification which the Jews brought with them from other lands where there was official discrimination served them well in the New World.

I would urge you also to focus less on what Jews achieved for themselves here and more on their contributions to American society. Even the scorned Jewish financier had his historical role. The Union war effort in the Civil War was underwritten in large part by money raised by Jewish bankers who sold Union war bonds in Europe.

The role of Jews in the Russian Revolution and the early Soviet Union? Unsurprising considering that civic equality came only with the overthrow of the Czar.

But later writes:

…if it’s a choice between Stalin and Trotsky — and it was — I’ll take Trotsky any day. His Jewishness was more a historical accident than a guiding faith…

So which is it? Jewish Bolsheviks were justified in their mass murder, “considering that civic equality came only with the overthrow of the Czar” (and by inference, the country’s ruling Christian patriarch), or Jewish Bolsheviks weren’t really Jewish at all, and were disproportionately represented merely by “historical accident.”

Do you see what I mean when I say Jewry seeks to have it all ways, and regularly lies through its teeth?

Again, all one needs to keep in mind to understand organized Jewry is that its only principle at any given time and in any given context is the Jewish supremacist angle of “Is it good for the Jews?”

This means, for example, that Judaics like Caleb will argue one minute that revolutionary Jews were totally justified in their murderous communist coup, and then five minutes later, argue that these murderous Jews weren’t really Jewish at all.

A decent and honorable people doesn’t need to lie through its teeth and shift from this position to that, running from country to country, rewriting and spinning its own recent history with each new new chapter, decade after decade, century after century, in order to survive.

Chris, when Josef Goebbels wrote that the simpleminded, common people must be given a single enemy to hate and blame for all misfortunes, the Minister for Enlightenment and Propaganda must have had in mind people like you.

The family of Leon Trotsky did not suffer the poverty and discrimination common to the Jewish proletariat in Imperial Russia. Trotsky himself started out as a member of the largely non-Jewish revolutionary group People’s Will. He was aware that most Russians, and especially Ukrainians and Poles, would consider him a Jew first but he did not see himself as such.

Neither did Stalin’s assassins. They were directed by a senior NKVD operative named Eitingon of Jewish background. Guess he somehow got left out of the “conspiracy”.

The radical antisemitism of Goebbels (and Hitler) only came to the fore when the nazis achieved power. It is not true that antisemitism was the main reason that the Nazis won power, that was due to a confluence of factors including a demographic youth bulge .

“Civic equality came only with the overthrow of the Czar.” Inequality, like the Jewish exemption from serving in the Army, when that exemption was rescinded it was cited as “persecution”. The main reason the Czar was overthrown was that he didn’t persecute his enemies (by taking reprisals on their families and national group for instance).

Yes it was “especially Ukrainians” who considered Trotsky (and the many other Jews among the early leadership ) a Jew first. The Jewish apparatchiks were influenced by that to take action against the Ukraine you think ?

Caleb claims to know how Trotsky thought of himself, and that he didn’t think of himself as a Jew. Presumably, he also “knows” that the thousands of Jewish Bolsheviks who were part of the communist coup and genocide agenda didn’t think of themselves as Jews, either, because they weren’t religious.

But how can this be if, as Israel has long ruled, Judaism is a blood line, and not a religion? Obviously, it’s common for non-religious Jews to sill think of themselves as ethnically Jewish, and as part of the tribe and serving its interests (in this case, communism as a Trojan horse for Jewish supremacism.)

This Jewish shell game of “now he’s a Jew, now he isn’t” is all part of the chameleon nature of the racket and the people.

BTW, Caleb, the concept that “common people must be given a single enemy to hate and blame for all misfortunes” originated with Jewry when it broke the world into “us and them” by way of “Jew vs. Gentile,” and then systematically went about demonizing, cheating, and sometimes even killing “sub human” non-Jews as part of its cultural doctrine and dogma in a formula absolutely guaranteed to engender all manner of enemies.

When those enemies come home to roost, it then declares itself a “victim” of “irrational anti-Semitism.”

How rational is that? Well, I guess it’s worked in terms of longevity, but at the cost of creating a callous and increasingly warped people that is now on the cusp of becoming outright satanic.

Gabor, I tried to answer what I think of the pathetic Al Shirk a/k/a Lindemann and his compendium of rumor and out-of-context and mistranslated quotes called “Esau’s Tears” BUT the webmaster declined to post it.

To settle the question of Dzerzhinsky’s knowledge of Yiddish (his Jewish wife and many Jewish liaisons and friends etc. are undeniable, I guess), I sent an email to Professor Lindemann asking for his sources. (Yes I know he uses his wife’s name.) That was the only thing for which I used Lindemann as a source, so I hope there will be no need for further comments on that book.

Gabor, my unpostable posting also observed that for a certain sort of Pole, Feliks Dzerzhinsky was not the son of the Polish nobility at all. He was actually a Jew himself! His Jewish father **bought** the Dzerzhinsky estates and the name along with it, so goes the “true story”.

Even if you don’t quite swallow that, you seem to believe not only that being married to a Jew(ess) makes you one but you become Jewish if you even have among your friends a Jew or two. It’s…catching!

P.S.: Do you think the late Pope, born Karol Woytila, developed a case of hebrewitude from the Jewish friends he often proudly acknowledged?

Your method of debate is one of diverging arguments piled upon each other. Once I refute one of your claims, without acknowledging the statement you say something irrelevant, and we cannot reach any meaningful conclusion. What about sticking to the points I made in my previous posts, and either refuting them or accepting them? What about starting with the facts, not the conclusions?

It’s irrelevant what some antisemitic Poles believe or not believe, since we’re not debating about antisemitic Poles, we don’t need to discuss their beliefs. I obviously don’t believe Dzerzhinsky was Jewish, so we can just agree that he was born into the Polish nobility, more precisely into an impoverished Polish noble family. (The distinction is important because in Poland at the time almost 10% of the population belonged to the nobility, so it didn’t carry much of a social standing.)

I also never stated that having among my friends “a Jew or two” makes one Jewish. What I did state was that when the majority of your friends are Jewish, your spouse is Jewish, you praise the Jews, then in effect you are sort of assimilated into Jewry: you will come to share your friends’ and spouse’s outlook, their attitudes, etc. Do you think it’s such an incredible statement, that you can become assimilated into the milieu where you are having most of your social contacts? I’m not saying everybody automatically becomes assimilated that way, but if you take a lot of people with a majority of their friends being Jewish, their spouses being Jewish, then a lot of these people will also abundantly praise Jews and also imitate them in many ways, and will share their attitudes and worldviews. I gave many examples of philosemitic Gentile leaders in the revolution who were in a Jewish milieu (majority of their friends Jewish, etc.) The question is first, whether these Gentiles really were in a Jewish milieu. The answer is affirmative. Do you agree that the majority of Bukharin’s or Dzerzhinsky’s friends were Jewish? That they were married to Jewesses? You can explicitly state that “Stalin was not jewified in any way in spite of being part of the Bolshevik leadership”, but I can’t see how it could be denied about Bukharin, Dzerzhinsky, Lunacharsky, Kalinin. Do you agree to that, or you disagree and you think that being a philosemite (who actually, in the case of Kalinin, cries emotionally when he hears about pogroms, but doesn’t care about the death of millions of his own people), having many Jewish friends (the majority of your friends), a Jewish spouse, and all these things still don’t have any effect on your attitudes?

I continue here since it’s so inconvenient to find the appropriate reply button.

Stalin was no one’s “creation”. He created himself.

When I wrote about the Golem to which Jewish revolutionaries fell victim to, I referred to the Soviet party-state and the secret police. We need not feel pity for a Zinoviev, he participated in the creation of the Golem that destroyed him.

Your contention that being married to a Jew makes you one reveals a crude, rather oriental sort of antisemitism, as if Jewishness were an infection transmitted via the marriage bed.

I’m certainly not saying a Jewish wife makes one a Jew. But your original argument was that Soviet communism under Stalin was antisemitic. The truth is Jews were underrepresented in the Gulag, overrepresented in the party leadership (Kaganovich was probably one of the five most powerful people in the 30s, after Stalin, Molotov, and together with Voroshilov and Zhdanov), and many of the gentile leaders’ wives were Jewish as well (Voroshilov and Molotov), which means that the USSR could not possibly be antisemitic (whatever that means) during the 30s. Do you agree or I need to elaborate the point further?

The other thing is Dr. MacDonald’s theory, with which I hope you have some familiarity. This says that Jews don’t have an attachment to the hosting gentile culture surrounding them, they actually hate it, and this makes them prone to participation in destructive movements (like Bolshevism). Now having a Jewish wife could have the effect of making you less respectable to your own culture, which could be an explanation for people with Jewish spouses to be attracted to Bolshevism. (The other explanation would be self-selection, those people who don’t respect their own culture in the first place will choose Jewish spouses. I would say probably both are true. A third explanation might be sheer chance, but for so many bolshevik leaders either being Jews themselves or having Jewish spouses… I just don’t find chance plausible. So you cannot say the “happened to be Jewish” explanation.)

Molotov had a Jewish wife but there was nothing remotely Jewish about him.

However, he was among the ones to lobby for a Jewish homeland after WWII, until Stalin’s personal opposition to that became known to him. And:

She, however became a fanatical Communist which even a spell in a Siberian labor camp did nothing to diminish.

She went to Siberia for making good friends with Golda Meyerson (later Golda Meir), first Israeli ambassador to the USSR. Her first meeting with Meyerson was a bit embarassing for the Soviet state which presumably commanded the full loyalty of all of her subjects: she broke in tears, and when Meyerson asked what happened, she answered “ich bin a yiddische tochter”. So she had a very strong Jewish identification. She had no tears for the millions of gentiles being murdered and uprooted by a regime of which she was part of, her tears were spared for the Jewish people. You say it had no influence on Molotov? At the very least it could somehow be connected to Molotov having so little feeling for his own people. Either he chose a wife who wasn’t to the least attached to Russians because he himself didn’t feel much attachment to his people, or she influenced him into that. Or both.

Ordzhonikidze and Beria were fellow Georgians.

There’s nothing strange about it. According to KMac, Jews are prone to participate in destructive movements because they feel hostility towards gentile culture. Now this could be true of other aliens: Georgians or Latvians could feel as little attachment to and as great hostility toward Russian culture as Jews (Martin Latsis is a prime example of that).

Dzerzhinsky was a Pole.

A Pole who happened to have many Jewish friends, whose wife happened to be Jewish, and who happened to speak Yiddish. A remarkable chance event, that one of the few leading gentiles in the early years of the bolshevik regime just happened to have that close connection to Jews.

Plekhanov, Lenin’s teacher

He was Russian. I never said Russians (or other gentiles) couldn’t be stupid, murderous, supportive of destructive ideologies, etc. However, Plekhanov opposed Lenin’s regime, and died in Finland (very close to the border, now a suburb of Sankt-Peterburg) in exile. Lenin may have learned from him, but so did Lenin learn from a huge number of others, including many (probably the majority) Jews.

Lenin himself, his maternal grandfather who may have been born a Jew notwithstanding.

Lenin’s grandfather was born a Jew, and not “might have been” born one. Happened to be one, another remarkable chance event. However, his being of a mixed ancestry was probably a reason why he felt so little attachment to traditional Russian culture. And yeah, his maternal grandfather probably had little attachment to that culture either, which in turn might have affected his stance. He also had personal issues, like his brother’s execution, etc. Again, we’re not saying a gentile couldn’t be evil, murderous, psychopathic, or participating in or even leading destructive movements. We’re saying being a Jew highly increases the possibility of that, just as being an African by origin highly increases the chances of being a rapist, a murderer, committing GBH, etc.

However, Fanya Kaplan **was** a Jew

There were Germans who did try to kill Hitler, does this make the statement “Germans in general supported Hitler” untrue? I think Yuri Slezkine was correct when he wrote that Jews in general tended to support the revolution and the Reds.

Stalin’s contacts included Jewish toadies like the filmmaker Eisenstein and more defiant types who paid the price of speaking and writing freely such as Isaac Babel.

Stalin had many many Jewish acquaintances. He didn’t like Jews as a group, but again, did he ever like any group at all? He didn’t even seem to like his fellow Georgians much. With the exception of Beria he never drew any Georgian into the high leadership (Ordzhonikidze was part of the Old Guard), his lack of ethnic networking was probably one of the remarkable features that enabled him to outmaneuver Jews: they didn’t believe maneuvers against his Jewish opponents were antisemitic in nature, because Stalin so obviously lacked ethnic prejudice, so he could gain the support of a number of Jews – so crucial until the middle of 30s.

Ah, yes, Gabor, the “scientific theories” of Prof. MacDonald — Southern California’s answer to Trofim Lysenko. But as to that, if “hostility to the majority culture” is found among Georgians and Latvians in the Soviet Union then perhaps such hostility is a minority characteristic, not one peculiar to Jews in the USA, like “sticking together” or “being good with numbers”.

If Stalin was opposed to the establishment of Israel, he was not so opposed he did not provide essential war materiel to the Jewish state fighting for its like against the armies of five Arab countries. Without Stalin’s provision of aircraft and a landing field in Czechoslovakia the result of Israel’s war of independence might have been different.

If Foreign Minister Molotov advised Stalin to support the creation of a Jewish state it was because he believed it would be bad for Britain and France, not good for the Jews. Perhaps Molotov — and Stalin — had plausible hopes that Israel would become a Soviet client, or even a satellite. Certainly there were no close state-to-state relations with the United States at that stage. President Truman recognized the new country out of sentiment and admiration for the underdog — a role Truman himself had so often played.

Feliks Dzerzhinsky, a Polish nobleman, spoke **Yiddish**? You would have to back up such a wild statement with sources more reliable than the usual neo-Nazis. Sounds like another version of Stalin’s “Jewish wives”.

There is no evidence Lenin knew anything of his grandfather’s Jewish birth since he converted as a very young man and lived most of his life in the Russian Orthodox Church, marrying and raising a family that way.

btw you forgot Yezhov, Stalin’s chief executioner after Yagoda and before Beria. His wife was Jewish and real “hot number” according to some sources.

Yep, any minority can be hostile to majority culture, there’s no mistery here. Dr. MacDonald quite explicitly states that there’s nothing in Jews which is not present in other people, the only difference might be the extent. There are a few points. First, Jews are a kind of permanent minority, unlike other minorities they don’t assimilate in the real sense of the word. Second, they learn the language perfectly, so they use the local language without noticeable accent and are still aliens. For example Hungarians in Slovakia or Romania cannot get Slovakian or Romanian vote in the same way Jews could get Hungarian votes over the past 20 years (the largely Jewish-led liberal party, SZDSZ got over 20% in 1990 and then in 1994…), because they speak the language with an accent. The third point is the higher Jewish IQ, which some on this site deny, although it’s clearly part of Dr. MacDonald’s theory, and I would also find incomprehensible the rest without it. The fourth point is the relatively higher Jewish ethnocentrism. I can give you reference to a study where Jewish ethnocentrism in NY city was found to be way higher than even black ethnocentrism, not to mention Italian and other European (the way lowest was WASP ethnocentrism).

Now this might have some genetic components, although I slightly disagree with the professor on that account. I think the nature of Jewish culture (the centrality of the Holocaust and the pogroms, Jewish history as a kind of Leidensgeschichte) is a good enough explanation for that. Jews are constantly indoctrinated about them being in constant danger of another Holocaust happening tomorrow, which is a very effective indoctrination. Since the holocaust religion is now part of the mainstream culture (because it’s largely Jews who make that culture), this indoctrination reaches nonpracticing, nonreligious, or even half-Jews (sometimes even quarter-Jews could have a Jewish identity, because that’s the group which they perceive to be in danger, and not the other one), or even spouses of Jews. (I have seen the latter in Hungary, when a long-term gentile girlfriend of a half-Jew started all the rants about Jews producing all worthy culture in Hungary and elsewhere, and being irrationally and constantly prosecuted.)

So, Jews are just a permanent minority, with a very strong identity (and very strong instinct to stick together, stronger than other minorities), and one that’s getting to the top of society. You get the point why it’s more dangerous than say Germans who assimilate relatively quickly (it took a few generations for my father’s family in Hungary, my grandparents could already not speak German, my father can, but he learned it when he was in East Germany in the 70s). Also, the overseas Chinese are similar, but there are important differences. The Chinese never took over Thai or Indonesian culture. Moreover, Dr. MacDonald and most readers of this site don’t support Chinese or Korean or any other kind of immigration to any white western country.

My source on Dzerzhinsky is Albert Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears. BTW he was from an impoverished noble family, in Poland nearly 10% of the population was noble (in Hungary it was over 5%), and of course the huge majority of them working in stables or simply farming on a small piece of land. Nobility in that part of Europe didn’t mean as much as in Western Europe, because there was so many of them. I don’t know what exactly was the reason of that inflation of titles in Hungary and Poland, but it’s a fact. There was a time when most of Dzerzhinsky’s social contacts consisted of Jews (Jewish revolutionaries, to be more precise).

Regarding Lenin, he knew he was of mixed ancestry (it’s not necessary he knew about his Jewish grandfather), and so he didn’t feel much attachment to Great Russian culture or traditions. On the other hand, if I recall correctly Robert Service mentioned the possibility that he might have known this during his life. But a more interesting point is that he was a philosemite. He abundantly praised the Jews for being the vanguard of the revolution…

Re Molotov, I didn’t talk about Israel, I meant the Jewish national home within the USSR. Because after WWII Birobidzhan was (rightly) perceived to be a failure, many people in the Jewish Anti-Fascist Commission started lobbying for a Jewish homeland in the Crimea (in the place of the by then deported Tatars) or in the Volga (in the former Autonomous Volga German Soviet Socialist Republic, which they thought would be a just retribution given what the Germans committed against the Jews – never mind that the Germans living for centuries in Russia had nothing to do with Hitler…) Molotov was among those leaders supporting it, until Stalin let it be known that he opposed the new Jewish republic inside the USSR. After 1948 Jews got into a very difficult situation for the same reason the Germans, Poles, etc. had been: they were thought to be agents or potential agents of a foreign country. And Jews didn’t help their own cause by rallying in great numbers to greet Meyerson. Even high ranking Jews did that, which made Stalin (either a psychopath or not but surely pathologically paranoid) especially suspicious. After that, a sort of persecution of Jews started, but according to estimates Stalin might have killed 500 or so Jews during the anti-Zionist campaign. It was not much by any standards in a country where millions were murdered. Even the majority of Stalin’s Jewish victims died before the anti-Zionist campaign. So Jews were highly underrepresented among the victims of Soviet communism, and until at least 1948 were overrepresented among the perpetrators. You like it or not, Soviet communism cannot in any way be categorised as “antisemitic” during the most murderous period of Soviet Communism.

There’s nothing special about Yezhov’s wife, however, his position was never too stable, and the five people I mentioned (we could add Mikoyan) were always more powerful than him.

Anyway, the accusation has completely lost its meaning, because as someone mentioned above, it has a connotation of racism. Organized Jewry complaining of racism is and has always been unadulterated, hypocritical chutzpah. Jewry invented racism, so it’s like a habitual thief whining of being victimized when someone else robs his house of all the stolen goods.

Only organized Jewry would have the chutzpah to file a police complaint AND an insurance claim.

This sort of ransacking of accusations by sources with their own issues with George Orwell — complaints about his supposed “homophobia” and the bitter hatred he aroused among doctrinaire Communists — are notably barren of actual writings of his. Orwell’s sharp observations about individual Jews — the handful that can be gleaned from many thousands of pages– are no different from those made by Jews about each other! There are no insulting terms used (unless you were brought up to regard “Jew” as a term of abuse), no references to “the Jews”, no indicia at all of a general dislike.

btw: George Orwell indeed had no use for homosexuality and did at least once make a reference to “the pansy Left”. He liked women, did not regard them as “comrades” and regarded sexual feelings as one area that even the most totalitarian regimes could not control and accordingly tried to repress.

As Zionist historian Lenni Brenner wrote – The Jews don’t believe in ‘democracy’. They have always prospered under military and civilian dictatorships. Now, they have turned the US into a civilian dictatorship to exploit nations around the world.

To quench their thirst for oil and water, Jews with the help of US, are targeting Lebanon again.

Biological atheists would reduce society into all against all, because for them, bloodlines are paramount right down to familial bloodlines. Or they would revert society back to royalism, wherein the strongest bloodline rules out and pacifies society through brutish will of that clan, which then become the royalist line around which society rallies.

Visionaries recognize that great civilizations need broad concepts and common ties to hold them together, “fantasy” or not, “myth” or not.

Western civlization has elements dating all the way back to Homeric Greek myth, but which reached its apex rallying around Christianity. Inspired by myth or not, the acccomplishments of Western civilizaition are material and real.

Jewry is a predatory, parasitical element within Western civilization. If it strangles the rallying point of that civilization (Christianity) it can feast upon the dying carcass until it collapses, and easily exterminate all scattered, biological opposition the way it exterminated the Cossacks in Soviet Russia.

Z.O.G., what good is your biological line going to do you when its been turned to ashes or been feasted upon by worms in the grave?

Christianity has been the most successful and humane long term answer to the question of insatiable, predatory Jewry and its murderous, totalitarian designs, with the added benefit of playing a major role in the inspiration of the greatest civilization in the history of man.

@ Bigmo
Matt 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.”

What a prescient description of the Jews that would go on to invent and instigate communism, and then fashion atheist-materialist-liberalism that has so infected the West today.

“for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.”

This reminds me of Orwell’s description of “the Party” in his novel 1984, which I believe was an allusion to Jewry, which worships itself, and sees itself as eternal on this earth. Psychologically, it has to see this earth as its entitled realm because it knows there will be no afterlife for the Jew (or for his leftist, liberal, and money-worshipping dupes):

From 1984, starting around Part 3, Chapter 2
:
“But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.”
***
‘You are thinking,’ he said, ‘that my face is old and tired. You are thinking that I talk of power, and yet I am not even able to prevent the decay of my own body. Can you not understand, Winston, that the individual is only a cell? The weariness of the cell is the vigour of the organism. Do you die when you cut your fingernails?’…

‘We are the priests of power,’ he said. ‘God is power. But at present power is only a word so far as you are concerned.”
***
The earth is as old as we are, no older. How could it be older? Nothing exists except through human consciousness.’

‘But the rocks are full of the bones of extinct animals — mammoths and mastodons and enormous reptiles which lived here long before man was ever heard of.’

‘Have you ever seen those bones, Winston? Of course not. Nineteenth-century biologists invented them. Before man there was nothing. After man, if he could come to an end, there would be nothing. Outside man there is nothing.’
***
“There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever.’ “
***
‘We have beaten you, Winston. We have broken you up. You have seen what your body is like. Your mind is in the same state. I do not think there can be much pride left in you. You have been kicked and flogged and insulted, you have screamed with pain, you have rolled on the floor in your own blood and vomit. You have whimpered for mercy, you have betrayed everybody and everything. Can you think of a single degradation that has not happened to you?’

George Orwell was a fierce hater of totalitarianism in all its forms. He also was immune to the disease of antisemitism. His essays condemn it wherever it was encountered — such as in French North Africa where Orwell found Sephardics working as artisans in tiny shops and living in squalor yet accused by the French of “having all the money”!

In **1984** which you have consciously misread Big Brother was undeniably Stalin. Trotsky was Emmanuel Goldstein the arch enemy and object of the officially organized “Two Minutes Hate” campaign.

As have others, I also once read 1984 as purely an allegory to Stalinism and Communism, (and to a lesser extent, Nazism) but upon closer inspection, one will find that Orwell explicitly states “Big Brother” and “the Party” are post-Communist formulations that regard themselves as far more effective and sophisticated totalitarians than the Communists and Nazis. As O’Brien says:

‘Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?’

Additionally, reading Part 3, Chapter 3 closely, one finds that Goldstein is working for Big Brother and the Party as a double agent (Orwell’s clear inference being that most lefty-Jews who hold themselves up as “revolutionaries” or “secularists” are actually double agents working for organized Jewry, in the vein of Trotsky, who, like Marx, constantly surrounded himself with Jews and had all manner of Jewish contacts.).

‘As you lie there,’ said O’Brien, ‘you have often wondered you have even asked me — why the Ministry of Love should expend so much time and trouble on you. And when you were free you were puzzled by what was essentially the same question. You could grasp the mechanics of the Society you lived in, but not its underlying motives. Do you remember writing in your diary, “I understand how: I do not understand why”? It was when you thought about “why” that you doubted your own sanity. You have read the book, Goldstein’s book, or parts of it, at least. Did it tell you anything that you did not know already?’

‘You have read it?’ said Winston.

‘I wrote it. That is to say, I collaborated in writing it. No book is produced individually, as you know.’…

The more the Party is powerful, the less it will be tolerant: the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism. Goldstein and his heresies will live for ever. Every day, at every moment, they will be defeated, discredited, ridiculed, spat upon and yet they will always survive. This drama that I have played out with you during seven years will be played out over and over again generation after generation, always in subtler forms.

It all ads up: Orwell was warning the world that organized Jewry was behind Communism, and using it as a Trojan horse for Jewish supremacist ideological Zionism.

Caleb, take off your Jew goggles and you will be able to see the world more clearly.

Additionally, Orwell was a socialist, so any professed opposition to what Zionists call “racist anti-Semitism,” (a self-serving, overblown complaint, and totally hypocritical, particularly when coming from institutionally racist Jewry) was merely in keeping with socialist, “anti-racist” dogma of the time.

And to illustrate that unless one completely toes “the Party” line of ignoring blatant Jewish supremacy on the Left of Orwell’s era (and to this day on the multi-cultural Left and in the Democrat Party) he’s been accused of “anti-Semitism” by lefties many times.http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=6408

Clearly, Orwell knew the score about organized Jewry, and wasn’t affraid to drop all manner of hints about it’s nefarious character, but still maintained a veneer that kept with socialist dogma.

If YOU want to see the world more clearly, Chris, get back on your medication.
Be sure also to bring up your Jew obsession in group.

**1984** was a work of fiction albeit a thinly disguised one–though somewhat more abstract than the allegorical **Animal Farm**. The last line, describing Big Brother’s thick ‘stash, comes as close as necessary to direct identification.

Orwell refers slightingly to the “Jew joke” in another of his essays, this on novelty post cards that used to be sold in England. His description of his Jewish commanding officer in the POUM militia was invariably laudatory.

Orwell’s Party has nothing to do with Jewry, except that its original leaders (like the original leaders of the communist party in Russia) were Jews, who were later outmaneuvered by a gentile leader, and later on presumably the whole leadership consisted of gentiles. That’s the picture one gets from the book.

However, Orwell’s Party is very far from Judaism, for example O’Brien explicitly states that if in order to keep the Party in power they’d have to find the most talented proletarian children and replace their own children with these talented proletarian ones, they would do that. Is this Judaism? I don’t think so. Judaism might be the exact opposite.

The Sephardics didn’t have all the money, the “real jews” did and you know it! Whitish Israeli jews are hatefully racist against black jews, it is really offensive, hence the apartheid system employed in your beloved desert outpost. (I really got tired of all that unimaginative stonework in Jerusalem- everything looks the same) By the way, don’t get me started on the rude storekeepers in Israel with their made in China crap….my trip to Israel did more to make me see the light about jews than anything else I’ve ever done or read. They are the most elitist bunch of assholes on this earth, rude as hell.

In 1984, “the Party” sees itself as “collective and immortal” (that’s how Jewry sees itself); “Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party” (that’s how Jewry operates, shifting from Left to Right and back again, according to need, and forcing its lower level adherents and lackeys to follow suit); “The weariness of the cell is the vigour of [the Party] organism,” (that’s how Jews view their generational relationships); “We are the priests of power” says O’Brien, (that’s how Jewry views itself, “a nation of priests”); “The earth is as old as we are, no older,” says O’Brien, “How could it be older? Nothing exists except through human consciousness,” (Jewry dates its historical mythology to the beginning of the earth, and narcissistically sees itself as the center of human consciousness); “There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party,” (Zionism as the “loyalty” to which everyone must submit, as is nearly the case in the U.S., and what they‘re working on in the Mideast); “Can you think of a single degradation that has not happened to you?” (the constant lament expressed on this very site about the West’s treatment at the hands of Jewry); …

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. I’m not saying it’s a perfect match, or even that the prophetic Orwell was fully conscious about what he was describing and why, but it’s a damn close description of how Jewry operates and thinks.

Orwell’s Party is not a biological entity: the abstract concept of the Party is more important than the biological survival of the group (“party members” or even “Inner Party members”), which is not Judaism, but is the exact opposite of it. Rabbis ruled during the Spanish Inquisition that third generation marranos (provided they could prove being descended from Jewish ancestors, or at the very least from an unbroken line of halakhically correct Jewish mothers) could be treated as real Jews, once they revert to Judaism. Of course, such marranos were much more desirable marriage partners than converts. Compare that to the party, where although in practice there is some heredity, in theory that’s not important, and they are explicitly willing to search out the most talented Prole children into the Party and expelling their own biological children should the need arise. The family itself became an organ of the Thought Police, again something different from Judaism.

There might be some parallels, though, but I just don’t think that’s a real good parallel. Actually I think Orwell might have believed that the losers in the Moscow power struggles (Trotsky, or Emmanuel Goldstein) were morally better than the winners (Stalin, or Big Brother). Which was very much untrue. (Stalin essentially followed a kind of moderate trotskyism, leaving out the most brutal excesses of Trotsky.) The secret book of the Brotherhood (“The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism”) is written by Goldstein, so Goldstein is depicted as a kind of democratic opposition to Ingsoc. (Although there’s a twist to that, since O’Brien later turns out to be a contributor to the book, so in the end the book might be the work of the Party as a whole, and not even anti-Ingsoc.)

Gabor, I hardly think the mass-murderous paranoia that characterized High Stalinism could be called a mild form of Trotskyism. Would Trotsky have held show trials and sent Solzhenitsyn to the Gulag just for writing a letter? Would Trotsky have purged the Red Army of his imagined enemies so thoroughly that it could no longer defeat even Finland?

Trotsky was no angel. His actions against the Kronstadt sailors and his forced collectivizations illustrate that. Trotsky would not however have made a deal with Hitler (for which you probably condemn him) without which World War II would not have begun when it did and perhaps not at all.

The mass-murderous paranoia actually killed maybe a million people, add or take a few hundred thousand. This was maybe 5% of all people killed during Soviet Communism’s murderous first three decades.

As for the rest, people were sent to the Gulag for writing a letter back in the early 1920s, when Trotsky still was #2 leader in the party. This was not Stalin’s invention.

Trotsky’s program was basically done by Stalin during the first two five-year plans, except that Trotsky wanted it even larger-scale. Back in the 20s Stalin was the moderate NEP-supporter and Trotsky wanted immediate collectivisation and dekulakisation. After 1929 many troskyietes joined Stalin (for example Pyatakov, who went on to become Ordzhonikidze’s deputy and then was executed during the Great Terror as a suspect former trotskyite) because Stalin’s program was essentially theirs. However, Stalin was a bit more flexible than Trotsky. I must admit the comparison is a bit unfair, because we’re comparing Stalin’s actual policies to Trotsky’s abstract ideas.

The fact remains that with the possible exception of the Great Terror, there’s nothing new to Stalinism that wasn’t already there in Leninism, or that wasn’t part of Trotsky’s ideas as well. Trotsky was the ideologist of forced labor, his idea put forward in the early 1920s was that people were lazy by nature, so they needed something to force them to work. In the inhumane capitalist system, this something was economic necessity (i.e. hunger or other needs), which in more advanced communism didn’t exist. Hence the need for forced labor. That was Trotsky. :)

The Red Army was a very inefficient force even before the Great Terror, however, it did defeat Finland after a few months. But you have to keep in mind the German armed force of the time was the best one of its kind in the world, and no other army could stand up to its full force until Moscow and Stalingrad. Regarding Finland, it was a very difficult terrain, if you look at the map you can see that even the Germans found it very difficult to make much progress over there. For example they couldn’t take Leningrad surrounded by swamplands, not to mention their relative lack of progress up in the North around Murmansk.

So Trotsky’s ideas (with the exception of the Great Terror) were the same as Stalin’s, and his ideas on collectivization were even more brutal than Stalin’s actual policies. Since the Great Terror was only a minor (though highly visible and public) part of the horrors of communism, I think it’s not unfair to say that Stalin was not any more brutal than Trotsky. Oh, I forgot to mention, Trotsky’s initial unpopularity within the party was caused by (among many other things) having the distinction of being the first Bolshevik leader to actually execute other (minor) Bolshevik party leaders. So maybe he wouldn’t have made a Great Terror, but who knows? Killing fellow Bolsheviks was not an alien idea to him either.

Regarding the purges in the Red Army, one must keep in mind that with the exception of a large number of general officers, most of the victims were not actually killed. They were usually back in service after a few years, for example Rokossovsky or Meretskov were both former purge victims. It was only the very high ranking and very visible generals who, when purged, were also killed. Most of the victims were only released from service (to be reactivated a few years later). The more profound effect of the purges was to frighten the lower ranks into inactivity, waiting for commands from on high. However, this was essentially typical of the Red Army even before the purges, just as it was typical of other armies at the time. Like the French Army. These armies needed to become more flexible for a mobile warfare, for which the French didn’t have space and time to reorganize themselves, and the Soviets did have both. They also had large supplies from the US.

Stalin was not even a little bit Jewish, a fact as stubborn as it is unpleasant to those who would lay all the crimes of Communism at the feet of “the Jews”. Some have tried to evade this fact by pointing to Stalin’s “three Jewish wives” [He had only two and neither were Jewish] and to Morozov, a Jew and son-in-law to Stalin for all of two years. It is claimed that this made Stalin a Jew by a sort of osmotic process.

Others have used more subtle reasoning. By a sort of Jesuitical casuistry it is conceded that Stalin did evil things but in doing so he was only carrying out the ideas of the Jew Trotsky. What ideas?

As for the “millions” supposedly killed **before** the Great Terror, this must refer to the famine of 1932-33, admittedly man-made though figures on actual deaths are disputed. Was this Trotsky’s doing? He was not even in the country at the time but the Ukrainian pro-Nazis (paging Ivan the Terrible) and their Jew-baiting priests would like you to think so.

Stalin’s worst personal characteristic was his tendency to carry grudges. I doubt Trotsky would have removed the entire top leadership of the army just because Gen. Tukhachevsky spoke harshly to him after the Russo-Polish War. Stalin also thought Trotsky had slighted him while he was at Tsaritsyn during the Russian Civil War. He never forgot it.

Stalin’s supposed “moderation” during the long ideological squabbling that followed the death of Lenin was only a ruse, of course. He allied with the Rightists to remove the Left Oppositionists after having allied with the Left Faction to neutralize the Rightists. It is still an open question whether the post of General Secretary from which Stalin launched his rise was a powerful position at the start or whether it was just a routine administrative job which Stalin transformed to the center of power in the Party.

Isn’t that just like a tribalistic Jewish “conservative” — paint Trotsky, the Jewish architect of the murderous commnist coup and the butchering founder of the Red Army (one of hoards of ruthless, murderous Jewish Bolsheviks) as relatively harmless, and put all the blame on gentiles.

From Left to Right, Jewish cultists will always side with their own in any contest of fame or blame with a gentile, no matter how low they have to stoop to do so. Caleb just proved it.

By the way, the Ukrainian famine was imposed and carried out (no doubt with great relish) under the leadership of yet another murderous Jewish Bolsheviks: Genrikh Yagoda, who was also the founder of the murderous NKVD.

Anyone who thinks conservative poseur Judaics are any different than liberal poseur Judaics is sadly mistaken; they all have but one principle and agenda: Jewish supremacism at any cost, and any lie.

“Would Trotsky have held show trials and sent Solzhenitsyn to the Gulag just for writing a letter?” (Who reported the contents of Solzhenitsyn’s letter ?; it was a …)

Caleb ‘knows’ that if Trotsky had came to power he would have transformed the human condition for the better and everybody would live happily ever after because that’s what he promised:-

“It is difficult to predict the extent of self-government which the man of the future may reach or the heights to which he may carry his technique. Social construction and psycho-physical self-education will become two aspects of one and the same process. All the arts – literature, drama, painting, music and architecture will lend this process beautiful form. More correctly, the shell in which the cultural construction and self-education of Communist man will be enclosed, will develop all the vital elements of contemporary art to the highest point. Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise.”

Trotsky’s big contribution was to suggest holding the families of Tsarists officers hostage in order to force them to fight for the reds. White officers were promised safe passage if they surrendered and then were killed.

Stalin’s post could never have been a “a routine administrative job “, it was a communist state and he appointed party delegates. Any attempt to put the messianic teachings of (rabbi descended) Marx into practice was destined to result in mass murder. Stalin lucked out.

Trotsky slighted most of the old Bolsheviks in his writings before the revolution, he ridiculed them and they never forgave him, that’s why he didn’t become leader. The activism of Jews like Trotsky was instrumental in the establishment of the Soviet regime and, as Chekists, Jews were disproportionately represented in the persecution of priests, business owners, professional people, well-off peasants … everyone except Jews really.

No, Slumday, Trotsky **enlisted** former Czarist officers, risking opprobrium to do so. But it worked. The Red Army became a professional force and won the Civil War.

Chris, if it’s a choice between Stalin and Trotsky — and it was — I’ll take Trotsky any day. His Jewishness was more a historical accident than a guiding faith. If he’d had the chance Trotsky would have deported his own, landowning parents as **kulaks**.

The Jews were spared? When Stalin finally turned on his own secret police thousands of Jews were sent to the Gulag or put to death in the execution cells of the Lubyanka, Yagoda included. [He got religion just as he was led away to be shot, remarking that there was a God after all.]

Caleb – you are a very good writer, obviously intelligent though a bit blinded by your biases, but I don’t understand one point you made. You said, “Stalin’s worst personal characteristic was his tendency to carry grudges.” Personally, I consider being a murderous sociopath to be a worse characteristic – but you are entitled to your opinion.

Stalin was a psychopath, who could only get to power in the Bolshevik party, which was largely Jewish-led. It’s a matter of fact that with the exception of the Great Terror he did nothing that Trotsky would not have done, and Trotsky would have done those things earlier. Trotsky also happily participated in everything up until his ousting from power, when he was actually demanding to start the collectivization that Stalin only started several years later.

Stalin benefited from being a psychopath (psychopaths easily dupe the rest of us because they can so easily fake to be sincere), and from the Jewish need for a paradegoy to lead such a Jewish-dominated movement. Jews were simply frightened of too many of them being at the leadership (and that that might cause an antisemitic backlash), and so they let Stalin become a paradegoy. However, being a power-hungry psychopath, he outsmarted them (you were correct to mention that he skillfully transformed a relatively minor administrative position into a real power center). In the process, he had a very large number of Jewish supporters, and even many of his non-Jewish supporters had Jewish wives. So the Bolshevik leadership had a largely Jewish character even during Stalin’s tenure. And among victim groups, Jews as such were underrepresented well into the 1940s. Actually, until 1936 there were remarkably few Jewish victims, and after that, many of the new Jewish victims were former perpetrators (like Yagoda, or Zinoviev) who deserve no tears for falling victim to the Golem of their own creation.

If Trotsky’s (and presumably other Jewish bolshevik leaders’) Jewishness was an accident, then it was a remarkable chance event in human history. :)

However, it’s clear that not only Jews could commit mass murder (as I wrote elsewhere, they are not responsible for everything that’s wrong in the world), and Stalin was a mass murderer who was not Jewish. He came to power thanks to a largely Jewish-led movement, and he was supported by an amazingly large number of Jews (especially in the secret police but also elsewhere), and he largely carried out the ideas that even his Jewish opponents held, but he himself was not Jewish.

That’s interesting, Gabor, except Stalin was no one’s “creation”. He created himself. The main shaper of his mentality probably was his years as a seminary student. Stalin’s speeches all had a decidedly liturgical tone.

Your contention that being married to a Jew makes you one reveals a crude, rather oriental sort of antisemitism, as if Jewishness were an infection transmitted via the marriage bed. Molotov had a Jewish wife but there was nothing remotely Jewish about him. She, however became a fanatical Communist which even a spell in a Siberian labor camp did nothing to diminish.

Ordzhonikidze and Beria were fellow Georgians. Dzerzhinsky was a Pole. Plekhanov, Lenin’s teacher was a Russian as was Lenin himself, his maternal grandfather who may have been born a Jew notwithstanding. However, Fanya Kaplan **was** a Jew and she expressed her “support” by taking a shot at Lenin!

Stalin’s contacts included Jewish toadies like the filmmaker Eisenstein and more defiant types who paid the price of speaking and writing freely such as Isaac Babel.

Tariq Ali: In 1997, asked to nominate his favourite book for National Book Day, the newly elected prime minister, Tony Blair nominated, Isaac Deutscher’s three-volume biography of Trotsky. … was just the same as the others except that he wrote very well and this appealed to New York intellectuals.

(I can think of another reason he appealed.)

Behind the Myth of Trotsky
John Gray on Trotsky: A Biography, by Robert Service
by John Gray, Literary Review
Trotsky has always been something of an icon for the intelligentsia, and it is not hard to see why. He fitted the perception that dissenting intellectuals like to have of themselves. Highly cultured, locked in struggle with a repressive establishment, a gifted writer who was also a man of action, he seemed to embody the ideal of truth speaking to power. The manner of his death solidified this perception, which has shaped accounts of his life ever since.

Trotsky was a charismatic leader whose appeal extended across the political spectrum. When Trotsky was on the run from Stalin, H L Mencken offered to give him his own library (Trotsky refused because he did not want to be indebted to a reactionary). The Bishop of Birmingham signed a petition on Trotsky’s behalf, and he was invited to become rector of Edinburgh University. Maynard Keynes tried to secure asylum for him in England, a campaign supported even by the power-worshipping Stalin-lover Beatrice Webb. Literary notables like Lionel Trilling, Edmund Wilson and Mary McCarthy joined the chorus of adulation. A hero-martyr in the cause of humanity, Trotsky deserved the support of every right-thinking person.

This has never been a terribly plausible view of the man who welcomed the ruthless crushing of the Kronstadt workers and sailors when they demanded a more pluralist system of government in 1921, and who defended the systematic use of terror against opponents of the Soviet state until his dying day. Introducing a system of hostage-taking in the Civil War and consistently supporting the trial and execution of dissidents (Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries, liberal Kadets, nationalists and others), Trotsky never hesitated to endorse repression against those who stood in the way of communist power. This much has long been clear, but the full extent of Trotsky’s role in building Soviet totalitarianism has not been detailed – until now.

Rigorously researched, covering Trotsky’s education and upbringing, his life as an émigré before the revolution, his time as a military leader, his losing battle with Stalin, his women, his life as an exile and his assassination, Robert Service’s new biography discloses a man very different from the one celebrated by bien pensants. The author of distinguished biographies of Lenin and Stalin, Service is eminently qualified to set Trotsky in his historical context. Here Service surpasses himself, and produces a life that is genuinely revelatory. Trotsky’s lifelong effort to distance himself from his Jewish background – ‘The workers are dearer to me than all the Jews,’ Service reports him saying – is carefully and sensitively examined. There is an interesting discussion of Trotsky’s attempt to fashion a distinctive philosophical position for himself (despite having a commendably unorthodox interest in Freud, he was no more successful than Lenin in this regard). The book is rich in telling detail. The young Trotsky liked to dominate the independent-minded women revolutionaries in his circle, and to this end studied carefully Schopenhauer’s The Art of Controversy, a guide to debating tricks. Trotsky was ‘an intellectual bully’, Service writes, who ‘relished wounding his opponents’. None of this is flattering to Trotsky, but Service is always scrupulously balanced. The result is a powerfully demystifying biography of one of the most heavily mythologised figures of twentieth-century history.

Western historians have largely accepted Trotsky’s self-serving account of his opposition to Stalin’s policies and methods, but the differences between the two leaders were more limited than has been commonly believed. Trotsky favoured moving quickly to central planning and collective farming, and shared Stalin’s view of the need to isolate the kulaks (richer peasants). Far from being more liberal than Stalin, during the New Economic Policy (NEP) he blamed Stalin for sheltering Menshevik economists. It was Trotsky who pushed ahead with the ‘militarisation of labour’, which imposed army-style discipline and punishment on Soviet workers. Hailed as an apostle of cultural freedom because of his interest in the arts, Trotsky believed as much as Stalin did that culture must be assessed (and policed) in terms of its political correctness. Trotsky’s influential essay Literature and Revolution, Service writes, ‘was essentially a work of political reductionism. When all is said and done, it was Trotsky who laid down the philosophical foundations for cultural Stalinism.’

It is often claimed that Trotsky’s superiority was in his analysis of the European situation. In fact his views on international affairs were far-fetched in the extreme. It is true that he grasped the threat posed by Nazism more clearly than Stalin. Even so, he shared Stalin’s vulgar-Marxist interpretation of Hitler as a ‘tool of German finance-capital’, never acknowledging the high levels of mass support Hitler had achieved among the German working class. Right up to his assassination in August 1940, Trotsky believed Europe was on the brink of proletarian revolution. When Nazi power was at its height he was still talking seriously of a revolt of German workers against Hitler and claiming that Finnish peasants would welcome Stalin as their liberator.

Trotsky may have seen the Nazi danger, but if his analysis of events had been accepted Nazi Germany would never have been defeated. Throughout the catastrophes of the 1930s he was consistently hostile to liberal democracy. In October 1939 he was praising the Comintern for remaining neutral in the European war. In July 1940 he wrote that the Trotskyite Fourth International should join the Comintern, refuse to support Britain against Germany and oppose American entry into the conflict. What was needed was ‘a people’s referendum on the war’, which would reveal to American workers ‘the futility of their democracy’. There is something ludicrous in the spectacle of Trotsky scorning the futility of democracy at a time when Hitler had almost extinguished it in Europe. But it is of a piece with an entire life of self-deception. As Service writes, Trotsky ‘had matchless self-righteousness’. In The Revolution Betrayed (written in 1936) he admitted that the Soviet Union was like Hitler’s Germany, a totalitarian state. He never admitted any responsibility for bringing the Soviet version of totalitarianism into being. But along with Lenin he had created the system that Stalin inherited and used for ends with which Trotsky generally sympathised.

Inhumanly ruthless in his dealings with non-Bolsheviks and at the same time thoroughly inept in his relations with Stalin, Trotsky was too vain and self-deceiving to merit the status of tragic hero accorded him by Western admirers. Undoubtedly he was courageous, and it can hardly be denied that he was a key player in some of the formative conflicts of the last century. But in the end it is impossible to see him as other than an absurd figure, a fantasist seeking to found a paradise who helped build a hell on earth. Had Trotsky prevailed in his struggle with Stalin, would the world today be in better shape – or would it actually be worse? It is a question Robert Service does not answer. But he has given us the best biography of Trotsky to date, and there seems little reason why anyone should write another.

This, to my mind, is a very important issue. Without the complicity of the white goy elite, jews would be unable to attain their privileged positions. And I disagree that the area is complex.

I think the mistake many observers make is to think that elite goys are often duped and fooled into collaboration with elite jews. This is naive, and lets them off the hook. In reality, the white goy elite harbours a considerable hostility to its host population born out of the fear and insecurity that goes with any position of great wealth and power.

It is this fear of being displaced that drives them into the arms of a people who have 2,000 years of experience in penetrating white elites and assisting them in abusing and parasitizing the host populations.

In order to undermine coalitions of hostile elites, irrespective of their composition, you need a form of democracy which allows for the bottom-up generation or veto of parliamentary legislation. Of all Western democracies, only Switzerland enjoys such a system. Only in Switzerland can a relatively small number of ordinary people ensure a plebiscite on any piece of government legislation.

All other Western democracies are simply coalitions of elites whose principal concern, to a greater or lesser degree, is the perpetuation of their own system of privilege and control.

It may be the enemy we need to attack most is what we all aspire to be – wealthy white people. Quite the quandary, because if our movement is unsuccessful, being wealthy and skinny in multi cultural America is the “new white”. If you are rich and skinny, you can live in a pleasant place free of the masses, you get the beautiful girl(s?), fancy sports car, fine restaurants where the staff pretends to like you in order to get a crumb of a tip, good seats at the stupid entertainment venues, and access to the centers of power. If in a moment of courageous clarity you realize your lesser white brothers are being screwed by people like you, take a shot of the hard stuff or a Xanax to salve your conscience, then party til dawn. Of course rich whites are in league with jews and avoid Watts! We have nothing to offer but strife and suffering and principal, and they don’t want to give up their privalege, because they know what will happen if they join our side. They will be hated and ridiculed, and unable to make the easy money they worship.

No Jason the Jew, the video is NOT blaming white westerns it is pointing thee finger at our Jewish controlled government. There are native Muslims who like their western counterparts see the world only in terms of black and white (like what you are pushing J-boy), so yes there are some misguided but the majority want to live in peace, in truth and with THEIR traditions, not with the political correctness of our masters. White need to do what’s best for us and that is to recognize the real enemies and those are the Big Jew/the money power and judas goats like you.

The Hollywood producer of such films as “Pretty Woman,” “Fight Club,” and the flick that brought Brangelina together “Mr. & Mrs. Smith,” also helped send nuclear trigger devices and other equipment to aid Israel’s nuclear program, according to a new biography.

Milchan was a longtime weapons dealer and Israeli intelligence agent who purchased equipment for the alleged Israeli nuclear program, a new biography –[“Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon Arnon Milchan”] — claims. […]

Milchan’s services to the Israeli security services have been made public before, but he has always denied or refused to acknowledge them. This is the first time Milchan confirms these claims, albeit indirectly.

What seperates Christianity from Judaism is the Talmud. And what seperates Christianity from Islam is the Sunnah. The Talmud and the Sunnah is what differentiates Islam from Judaism. Chrsitianity however introduced the Trinity which seperated it from both religions. Their similarities are based on scriptures, but especially with Islam and Judaism, the scriptures(OT and Koran) are not a true representation of Judaism or Islam.

Its impossible to understand the differences between these religions without understanding their sources. Its interesting that noweher in the OT does it even mention any oral traditions and nowhere in the Koran does it ever refers to another revelation. But thats how Judaism and Islam are structured. Both are dual revelationist and scripture abrogationist. Jesus as we know attacked the Pharisees and their adherence to the oral traditions at the expense of the OT.

Matt 15:1-3 “Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?”

This is a direct reference to the Talmud.

Matt 15:14 “They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.”

Matt 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.”

Matt 23:31-33 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?”

Mark 7:5-7 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

And so:

John 18:2-3 “Then Judas, having received a detachment of troops, and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, came there with lanterns, torches, and weapons”

It’s all part of Bush’s “New Arab World” – the establishment of new pro-Israel Arab regimes in the region. There are dozens of so-called ‘democracy’ think tanks run by Jews or Ziocons to bring that transformation in the Middle East. However, Iran and Hezbullah seem to have stuck in Jewish throat.

‘Washington Kurdish Institute’ is run by Mike Amitay, son former director of Israel Lobby (AIPAC) and chairman JINSA, Morris Amitay. Morris is also the founder of AEI and a member of ‘Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI)’. Morris is a Ziofacists like Daniel Pipes and former Homeland Security Secretary, who believe that radical Islamists (Islamofascism) wants to establish a Caliphate across the entire planet. In his April 20, 2007 column, the paranoid Zionazi Jew wrote: “The bellicose statements of Iran’s leaders calling for the annihilation of Israel, their national slogan of ‘death to America,’ and the calls for even more ‘martyrs’ make perfectly clear their future intentions. Fueling this bitter enmity toward Western civilization is a fundamentalist religious belief that inevitably a caliphate will be established to rule over the entire world”.

Gray Prince,I had rather trade all those “positive” contributions by Jews to civilization for not having the destructive ones.It would have saved a 100 million of lives (victims of Jewish communism),not to speak about the moral wreckage done by Jews.Yes,you Jews are influential far beyond your number (0,25% of the world’s population),but that is at least a mixed blessing,more realistically: a curse.Is that a reason for “ethnic pride”?

Gray Prince, if I put a website out like that extolling all the contributions of the white man, I’d be labeled a racist. Do you have enough self awareness to understand why you people are hated? Why don’t you take that list to Haiti and explain to them how much better their country would be if the jews ran it? How they are lesser than the jews because of their lack of accomplishments – do you have the balls to do that?

I don’t mind at all that every other country in the world hates America and its protectorate Israel, after all, we are the world’s foremost failed experiment in liberal left wing BS and love of the jews. Considering all the countries that have kicked out “your people”, it is your race that is hated, also. For some reason and I’ve never known a jewboy to deny it – people hate the jews. Black people hate the jews, brown people hate the jews, yellow people hate the jews, white people hate the jews – is it possible the jews have done anything to deserve such hatred? I conceded your point that America is hated, and I agree it is our fault. Is everyone else just bad, and 0.2 percent of the world’s population virtuous? P.S. What percentage of the world’s resources does that 0.2 % use?

I often wonder what is their plan A for when rather than if it finally hits the fan in America. After Argentina’s economy imploded which was followed by imposition of state of emergency and mass riots, the moneyed Jews scattered up north in the direction of Miami, L.A. and NYC to their existing properties prudently acquired beforehand. The remaining ones were collected by El Al 747s via emergency airlift organized by the Ariel Sharon government. No American Jew of means and in full control of his mental faculties is going to contemplate the idea of sheltering his family in the so-called ‘Israel’ where Man Bites Dog is the preferred modus operandi. Perhaps in exchange for gold bars f*cked by Judaic Wall Street thimbleriggers out of American pensioners, the Red Chinese could lease them out the Harbin area.

Something else to think about is the story of facebook and what role social networking has in controlling the masses. The Winklevoss Twins swindled out of their idea by Zuckerberg alone??? I doubt it. Here is the tribe closing rankhttp://finance.yahoo.com/news/Larry-Summers-calls-hftn-259689783.html?x=0&amp;.v=3 BTW Judge Alex is the son of (the many) holocaust survivors and of course former president of Harvard Larry, the looter of Russia, we all know.

Ok, so is that journeyman video blaming the West for Arab problems? By the way, if I go on Muslim and Arab websites, will I find posters saying positive things about White people and taking up our cause? I’d seriously like to see that if someone can direct me to it. We have all this oozing love for Arabs/Muslims on this site, but I wonder if it is reciprocated. I’d like to see, please.

And the video is sympathetic to Hugo Chavez (I hope the producers sent flowers to him during his hospital stay in Cuba). So … again we as Whites are supposed to put our interests aside and support Chavez the communist? And again, do the supporters of Chavez reciprocate and support White people around the world? I’d seriously like to see evidence of that.

The use of non-Jews to hide the roe of Jews is a chapter out of the communist handbook of the 1930s that used the concept of a Popular Front.

The ultimate jewified non-Jew was Stalin. His wives were Jewish. If Kagonovish’s sister was not married to him then his mistress was Jewish. His daughter’s first husband, before she broke free, was Jewish. At least one of his two sons married a Jewess. That is nigh on an assimilation into the tribe.

Yet, laughably Stalin is presented falsely as an anti-Semite. His purges killed many Jews but they were on the losing end of an internal party struggle. Given the overwhelming numbers of Jews in the most vicious killing machine of the 20th century any losing side had to be heavily Jewish.

Tadzio (have you read T. Mann’s **Death in Venice**?), already on Lenin’s death in 1924 the Soviet regime started to turn antisemitic. Kamenev and Zinoviev, Karl Radek and most of all Trotsky, all high Party members and all Jewish were deposed, sentenced in show trials or **in abstentia** and put to death though in Trotsky’s case it took ten years for Stalin’s agents to catch up to him.

The role of Jews in the Russian Revolution and the early Soviet Union? Unsurprising considering that civic equality came only with the overthrow of the Czar. But even in backward, peasant Russia there were not a few Jewish capitalists whose holdings were expropriated no less mercilessly by the commisars.

That’s wrong. According to Yuri Slezkine, as late as 1939 Jews’ proportion at the Gulag was lower than their share in the general population. At the same time, Jews were still very highly overrepresented in the top echelons of the Party and society in general. According to Slezkine, this was true most especially in the secret police.

The bolshevik regime’s “antisemitism” before 1945 (or even 1948) could only possibly mean that Jews were also victimized to an extent (though lest than the rest of society) while being prominent in government, culture, and the technical elite.

To some extent there is, I think, an overlapping of interests. The Jews’ thing is support for Israel. The non-Jews are aggressively interested in U.S. imperial hegemony in the world. They also would like to lure Jews and Jewish money into the Republican Party.

Groups like the “liberal” SPLC, which stirs domestic conflict by pitting different racial or ethnic groups against one another, and works with the Department of Homeland Security to create a police state at home, is the domestic equivalent of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Where in the majority (Israel), naked and viscous Judeofascism prevails. But where in the minority, Jewry employs window dressing like “social justice” and “equality,” and the liberals just melt into its arms. Never mind that Jewry defines social justice and equality as “tolerance” for de facto Jewish supremacism and control, all enforced coercively by an ideologically Zionist government and mass media.

As the ultimate tribal entity, Jewry isn’t at all interested in playing by the rules of the marketplace of ideas central to Western civlization, because the marketplace chose Christianity — which is why Jewry needs Big Government to rig the game to its own benefit.

The “marketplace” that chose Christianity was one Constantine ‘the Great’. Were it not for the resultant Christianizing of Western Civilization, under Constantine and his successors, the Jews and their sacred texts would have no credibility and influence over our culture whatsoever. What the Jews think they are going to do to co-opt the Chinese, once they become the world’s new hegemon, one can only speculate….

Constantine chose Christianity because a lot of his soldiers were already Christians. By the time Constantine chose Christianity, some 10% of the population was already Christian in the empire, possibly more.

I don’t think the Jews think as far ahead as “what’s gonna happen when the US goes under”, they just don’t know either. They think they can stay parasitic on the US and the US will stay strong in spite of this forever. They might think they’ll keep ruling the US even as it goes multiracial, and the US will stay strong and will keep waging wars on behalf of Israel. They are certainly not thinking about co-opting the Chinese. Or if they are, they are foolish.

Jake: “Were it not for the resultant Christianizing of Western Civilization, under Constantine and his successors, the Jews and their sacred texts would have no credibility and influence over our culture whatsoever.”

Western (Christian) Civilization was historically “anti-Semitic,” which is why Jewry hates it so. The Jewish racket was kicked out of country after country time and again within Western civ under traditional Christianity. The fact that greedy and venal Judaized Christian Zionists and Judaized liberals in America have turned their backs on traditional Christendom out of opportunism, and let the Judeofascists run amok, is no indictment of Christianity.

Why, just last night on TV I watched a pathetic, groveling Glenn Beck in Israel weeping out apologies for the Crusades to his Jewish audience. These kinds of craven cowards and their obsequies fawning over Jewry are the opposite of the traditional Christianity that was the theological basis of Western civilization.

Chris, Western Civilization, after its Christianization under Constantine, et seq., was anti-Jewish, not anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism is the modern concept that concluded that it was the “racial”– i.e., cultural– nature of all of Jewish society, not Jewish theology per se, that made Jews inveterately antagonistic toward Western Civilization (as, indeed, they had been ever since Alexander’s army marched south through Palestine, in 332 B.C., en route to Egypt– at which point Greece and the West replaced Babylon and the East as the great and perpetual Bete Noire of the Jewish People, with Rome, and then Christian Europe generally, replacing Greece per se, in turn).

While it is true that Christendom was largely antagonistic toward the Jews, because of their refusal to recognize and accept Jesus of Nazareth as their prophesied Messiah– with many Christians blaming the Jews outright for His supposed crucifixion at the hands of the Roman authorities– there still was a recognition, always, of the Jews’ being God’s original Chosen People, as there remains among Christians, as well as Muslims, to this day. Absent the fact that Christianity had sprung from Judaism– and despite the fact that the two theologies are quite antithetical to one another, in that the one is tribal and exclusive, and focused on worldliness, while the other is universal and inclusive, and focused on otherworldliness– there would have been no love lost between Christian hosts and their Jewish interlopers; the latter would have been made as unwelcome as any other group of unassimilable foreigners. It would have been a simple hate-hate relationship from the get-go! Jews were inevitably kicked out of country after country because of their secular practices, not because of their un-Christian theology; they were welcomed in originally, however, and eventually welcomed back in, because of their Biblical status as the original Chosen People, not merely because of their distinctive business acumen.

Gabor, one does not discard hundreds of years of history and culture, and gut one’s religious practices and worldview, simply because roughly one-tenth of the imperial population has taken up a bizarre foreign cult that is antithetical to your own very successful and quite ancient culture– especially when those converts are heavily concentrated among your lower classes, including your empire’s slave population. Amassing such a minority following– after nearly three centuries of proselytizing– hardly made Constantine’s singular decision to take up Christianity inevitable– nor even, frankly, scrutable!

Christianity was forced upon the empire from the top, and in short order– much as the current left-wing orthodoxies on race, culture, gender, sexuality, etc., have been forced upon us all by a treasonous, and short-sighted, elite. Between moving the imperial capital from Rome to Byzantium, and replacing “paganism” (i.e., Classical Mythology) with Christianity, Constantine caused Western Europe to collapse, more or less, into barbarism and, then, theocracy in less than a century and a half, causing virtually a millennium-long Dark Age to descend upon Western Europe. Although remarkably long-lasting and successful, in its own right, the Byzantine Empire was, nonetheless, not worth the incalculably high price that Western Civilization was forced to pay for it!

The western Zionist-controlled mainstream media will never like you to know the evils behind the recent break-up of Africa’s largest Muslim nation, Sudan. It has nothing to do with Arab-African or Shari’ah conflict. It’s part of western imperialists’ desire to recolonize part of Sudan and exploit its natural resources, mainly, oil, Gum arabic, Nile water for Israel and uranium.

Everyday, postings like this by Kevin MacDonald and his adherents reinforce the position of this website. Hard facts like these dispel all doubt about validity of this movement, and provide ever-increasing animus for foiling the Zionist agenda. Here is a link which, for me, best encapsulates the program behind this diabolism.l

No matter where it exists, Jewry uses, paranoia and influence over government to guard its insularity and drive the environment of paranoia, and if there is little to be fearful about, it will create a threat out of whole cloth.

That’s why liberals who believe Israel is the only problem are so childishly naïve.

Jewish hubris is boundless. Historically, gIven enough rope they always hang themselves. Remember the early stages of the our neocon-inspired Iraq War when politically-connected college-age American Jews were being sent to Iraq for short stints of “duty”? And the proposed new blue and white Iraq flag?